UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`SMART WEARABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`
`Patent No. 6,997,882 B1
`Issued: February 14, 2006
`Filed: December 21, 2002
`Inventors: B. Eugene Parker, Brendan M. Fabeny, Edward C. Larson, Jeffrey F.
`Monaco
`
`Title:
`
`6-DOF SUBJECT-MONITORING DEVICE AND METHOD
`____________________
`Inter Partes Review No. IPR 2017-01325
`
`DECLARATION OF THOMAS BLACKADAR REGARDING
`U.S. PATENT NO. 6,997,882
`________________________
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, Cover
`
`

`

`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Engagement ........................................................................................... 1
`B.
`Background and Qualifications ............................................................. 1
`C.
`Compensation ........................................................................................ 6
`D.
`Information Considered ......................................................................... 6
`LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY .......................................... 7
`A.
`Obviousness ........................................................................................... 8
`The 882 Patent ............................................................................................... 14
`A.
`Effective Filing Date of the 882 Patent ............................................... 14
`B.
`Overview of the 882 Patent ................................................................. 15
`1.
`Six Degrees of Freedom and 6-DOF Data ................................ 16
`2.
`Physiological Data and Information ......................................... 22
`3.
`Combining and Synchronizing 6-DOF Data and Physiological
`Information ................................................................................ 23
`Conclusion ................................................................................ 25
`4.
`The Prosecution History of the 882 Patent ......................................... 27
`Claim 8 of the 882 Patent .................................................................... 29
`Construction of Terms Used in the 434 Patent Claims ....................... 30
`1.
`“Synchronizing/Synchronized”................................................. 31
`2.
`“Reference-Frame” .................................................................. 35
`3.
`“Anatomical Reference-Frame” and “Inertial Reference-
`Frame” ...................................................................................... 37
`IV. OVERVIEW OF THE PRIOR ART ............................................................. 39
`A.
`Level of Ordinary Skill in the Art ....................................................... 39
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`C.
`D.
`E.
`
`i
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.i
`
`

`

`V.
`
`B.
`
`A. U.S. Patent No. 6,305,221 to (“Hutchings”) (Ex. 1005) ..................... 40
`1.
`Overview ................................................................................... 40
`2.
`The Measuring System and Acquiring 6 Degrees of Freedom
`Information ................................................................................ 42
`Displaying Results .................................................................... 53
`3.
`U.S. Patent No. 6,605,038 to Teller et al. (“Teller”) (Ex. 1006) ........ 54
`1.
`Overview ................................................................................... 54
`2.
`The Sensor System .................................................................... 57
`3.
`The Remote Central Monitoring Unit ....................................... 66
`COMPARISON OF THE PRIOR ART TO CLAIM 8 OF THE 882
`PATENT ........................................................................................................ 68
`A.
`Hutchings, in combination with Teller, Renders Claims 8
`Unpatentable ........................................................................................ 68
`1.
`Preamble .................................................................................... 68
`2.
`Step (a) ...................................................................................... 69
`3.
`Step (b) ...................................................................................... 72
`4.
`Step (c) ...................................................................................... 75
`5.
`Steps (d) and (e) ........................................................................ 80
`6.
`Step (f) ....................................................................................... 89
`7.
`Step (g) ...................................................................................... 97
`
`Appendix A: Exhibits Referenced
`
`ii
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.ii
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`A. Engagement
`I have been retained by counsel for Petitioner as an expert witness in
`
`1.
`
`the above-captioned proceeding. I have been asked to provide my opinion about
`
`the state of the art of the technology described in U.S. Patent No. 6,997,882 (“the
`
`882 Patent”) (Ex. 1001) and on the patentability of the claims of this patent,
`
`particularly in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,305,221 to Hutchings (“Hutchings”) (Ex.
`
`1005) and U.S. Patent No. No. 6,605,038 to Teller et al. (“Teller”) (Ex. 1006).
`
`Background and Qualifications
`B.
`I, Thomas Blackadar, make this declaration. All statements herein
`
`2.
`
`made of my own knowledge are true, and all statements herein made based on
`
`information and belief are believed to be true. I am over 21 and otherwise
`
`competent to make this declaration. Although I am being compensated for my time
`
`in preparing this declaration, the opinions herein are my own.
`
`3.
`
`Exhibit 1004 to this declaration is my curriculum vitae. I earned a
`
`Bachelor of Science degree in Biomedical and Electrical Engineering from the
`
`University of New Hampshire in 1981. Since then, I have devoted my career to the
`
`field of communications, wearable devices and sensor systems.
`
`4.
`
`Further, as shown in my curriculum vitae, I have significant
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.1
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`professional and academic experience in the field of wearable devices and sensor
`
`systems. I have been working with sensor systems for collecting and analyzing
`
`data relating to an individual’s physiological state for many years. In particular, I
`
`have worked and otherwise interacted with professionals and students of various
`
`experience and expertise levels in the wearable devices field. But, throughout, a
`
`primary focus has related to developing, identifying, demonstrating, testing, and
`
`consulting on wearable devices and sensor systems embodied in complex hardware
`
`and software products. For example, I have been involved in the development of
`
`technologies related to sensor systems for collecting and analyzing data relating to
`
`an individual’s physiological state. I have provided consulting services for
`
`wearable computing devices for small, medium, and large companies. These
`
`technologies include near real-time data delivery for vital signs monitors, wearable
`
`accurate speed distance watch and sensors, real-time vital signs monitoring for
`
`broadcast TV, low-power accelerometers, lower-power electronic systems,
`
`personal area wireless networks, and Warfighter Physiological Status Monitors for
`
`determining human stress levels. I have also provided to customers advanced
`
`electrocardiogram (“ECG”) monitors, sensor data-fusion solutions, and advanced
`
`low-power networking topologies designs, and design review services.
`
`5.
`
`I am currently the owner of FitSense Technology LLC. FitSense was
`
`2
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.2
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`founded to put the human body online by turning personal information into
`
`information that is actionable for the user.
`
`6.
`
`I also participate on the Canyon Ranch Institute Advisory Group
`
`Disruptive Health Technologies Council and am an active member of the Institute
`
`of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). I am particularly active in the
`
`IEEE Personal Health Device Standard group (IEEE 20601-11073) and have been
`
`involved in the development of medical/health device communication standards
`
`that enable communication between medical, health care and wellness devices and
`
`with external computer systems. I am also an active member of Healthcare
`
`Information and Management Systems Society, and past member of the American
`
`College of Sports Medicine.
`
`7.
`
`I have been involved in multiple conferences in the field of wearable
`
`devices and the collection and analysis of data relating to an individual’s
`
`physiological state. For example, these include: (1) in 1995, serving as co-chair
`
`for the DARPA 1996 Workshop on Wearable Computing; (2) in 2006, giving the
`
`keynote address, titled “Web Based Tools for Collecting Activity Data and
`
`Changing Behavior Telehealth: Technology for Behavior Change”; and (3)
`
`participating in the Health Care Unbound Personal Sensing Systems conference in
`
`2004, and the Health Care Unbound Mobile Clinical Trial Systems conference in
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.3
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`2005, and World Health Congress Panel Wireless Health Care conference in 2007
`
`(among others).
`
`8.
`
`I have co-authored 14 publications on topics in the field of collecting
`
`and analyzing data relating to an individual’s physiological state, including field
`
`monitoring of ambulation, estimates of maximal aerobic power in running humans,
`
`wearable and implantable body sensor networks, the use of wireless monitoring
`
`sensors for bariatric post-operative fitness training, mobile medical monitoring,
`
`and the like.
`
`9.
`
`I am a named inventor on twenty U.S. patents in the field of wearable
`
`devices and/or sensor systems for monitoring user activity. These include the U.S.
`
`Patent and Titles that are listed below:
`
`•
`
`8,214,007 Body worn physiological sensor device having a disposable
`
`electrode module
`
`•
`
`•
`
`7,962,312 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`
`7,937,121 Intelligent data network with power management
`
`capabilities
`
`8,264,328 Sensor device with persistent low power beacon
`
`7,768,415 Sensor device with persistent low power beacon
`
`7,617,071 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`4
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.4
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`•
`
`7,466,979 Intelligent data network with power management
`
`capabilities
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`7,428,472 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`
`7,428,471 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`
`7,200,517 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`
`7,187,924 Intelligent data network with power management
`
`capabilities
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`•
`
`6,898,550 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`
`6,536,139 Detachable foot mount for electronic device
`
`6,493,652 Monitoring activity of a user in locomotion on foot
`
`6,357,147 Detachable foot mount for electronic device
`
`6,336,365 Low-cost accelerometer
`
`6,298,314 Detecting the starting and stopping of movement of a
`
`person on foot
`
`•
`
`•
`
`6,122,340 Detachable foot mount for electronic device
`
`6,052,654 Measuring foot contact time and foot loft time of a person
`
`in locomotion
`
`•
`
`6,018,705 Measuring foot contact time and foot loft time of a person
`
`in locomotion
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.5
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`C. Compensation
`I am being compensated at a rate of $400 per hour for my study and
`
`10.
`
`testimony in this matter. I am also being reimbursed for reasonable and customary
`
`expenses associated with my work and testimony in this investigation. My
`
`compensation is not contingent on the outcome of this matter or the specifics of my
`
`testimony.
`
`Information Considered
`D.
`11. My opinions are based on my years of education, research and
`
`experience, as well as my investigation and study of relevant materials. In forming
`
`my opinions, I have considered the materials I identify in this report and those
`
`listed in the Exhibit List at Appendix A.
`
`12.
`
`I may rely upon these materials and/or additional materials to respond
`
`to arguments raised by the Patent Owner. I may also consider additional documents
`
`and information in forming any necessary opinions — including documents that
`
`may not yet have been provided to me.
`
`13. My analysis of the materials produced in this investigation is ongoing
`
`and I will continue to review any new material as it is provided. This report
`
`represents only those opinions I have formed to date. I reserve the right to revise,
`
`supplement, and/or amend my opinions stated herein based on new information
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.6
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`and on my continuing analysis of the materials already provided.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS FOR PATENTABILITY
`
`14.
`
`In expressing my opinions and considering the subject matter of the
`
`claims of the 882 Patent, I am relying upon certain basic legal principles that have
`
`been explained to me.
`
`15. First, I understand that for an invention claimed in a patent to be
`
`found patentable, it must be, among other things, new and not obvious from what
`
`was known before the invention was made.
`
`16.
`
`I understand the information that is used to evaluate whether an
`
`invention is new and not obvious is generally referred to as “prior art” and
`
`generally includes patents and printed publications (e.g., books, journal
`
`publications, articles on websites, product manuals, etc.).
`
`17.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding Petitioners have the burden of
`
`proving that the claims of the 882 Patent are obvious from the prior art by a
`
`preponderance of the evidence. I understand that “a preponderance of the
`
`evidence” is evidence sufficient to show that a fact is more likely true than it is not.
`
`18.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the claims must be given their
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. The claims
`
`after being construed in this manner are then to be compared to the information in
`
`7
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.7
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`the prior art.
`
`19.
`
`I understand that in this proceeding, the information that may be
`
`evaluated is limited to patents and printed publications. My analysis below
`
`compares the claims to patents and printed publications that are prior art to the
`
`claims.
`
`20.
`
`I understand that there are two ways in which prior art may render a
`
`patent claim unpatentable. First, the prior art can be shown to “anticipate” the
`
`claim. Second, the prior art can be shown to have made the claim “obvious” to a
`
`person of ordinary skill in the art. My understanding of the “obvious” standard is
`
`set forth below.
`
`A. Obviousness
`I understand that a claimed invention is not patentable if it would have
`21.
`
`been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention at the time
`
`the invention was made.
`
`22.
`
`I understand that the obviousness standard is defined in the patent
`
`statute (35 U.S.C. § 103) as follows:
`
`23. A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
`
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`
`8
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.8
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
`
`person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.
`
`Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`24.
`
`I understand that the following standards govern the determination of
`
`whether a claim in a patent is obvious. I have applied these standards in my
`
`evaluation of whether the asserted claims of the 882 Patent would have been
`
`considered obvious in December 2001.
`
`25.
`
`I understand that to find a claim in a patent obvious, one must make
`
`certain findings regarding the claimed invention and the prior art. Specifically, I
`
`understand that the obviousness question requires consideration of four factors
`
`(although not necessarily in the following order):
`
` The scope and content of the prior art;
` The differences between the prior art and the claims at issue;
` The knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and
` Whatever objective factors indicating obviousness or non-obviousness
`may be present in any particular case.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, I understand that the obviousness inquiry should not be
`
`done in hindsight, but must be done using the perspective of a person of ordinary
`
`skill in the relevant art as of the effective filing date of the patent claim.
`
`27.
`
`
`I understand the objective factors indicating obviousness or non-
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.9
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`obviousness may include: commercial success of products covered by the patent
`
`claims; a long-felt need for the invention; failed attempts by others to make the
`
`invention; copying of the invention by others in the field; unexpected results
`
`achieved by the invention; praise of the invention by those in the field; the taking
`
`of licenses under the patent by others; expressions of surprise by experts and those
`
`skilled in the art at the making of the invention; and the patentee proceeded
`
`contrary to the accepted wisdom of the prior art. I also understand that any of this
`
`evidence must be specifically connected to the invention rather than being
`
`associated with the prior art or with marketing or other efforts to promote an
`
`invention. I am not presently aware of any evidence of “objective factors”
`
`suggesting the claimed methods are not obvious, and reserve my right to address
`
`any such evidence if it is identified in the future.
`
`28.
`
`I understand the combination of familiar elements according to known
`
`methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.
`
`I also understand that an example of a solution in one field of endeavor may make
`
`that solution obvious in another related field. I also understand that market
`
`demands or design considerations may prompt variations of a prior art system or
`
`process, either in the same field or a different one, and that these variations will
`
`ordinarily be considered obvious variations of what has been described in the prior
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.10
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`art.
`
`29.
`
`I also understand that if a person of ordinary skill can implement a
`
`predictable variation, that variation would have been considered obvious. I
`
`understand that for similar reasons, if a technique has been used to improve one
`
`device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would
`
`improve similar devices in the same way, using that technique to improve the other
`
`device would have been obvious unless its actual application yields unexpected
`
`results or challenges in implementation.
`
`30.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis need not seek out precise
`
`teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, but
`
`instead can take account of the “ordinary innovation” and experimentation that
`
`does no more than yield predictable results, which are inferences and creative steps
`
`that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.
`
`31.
`
`I understand that sometimes it will be necessary to look to interrelated
`
`teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to the design
`
`community or present in the marketplace; and the background knowledge
`
`possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. I understand that all these
`
`issues may be considered to determine whether there was an apparent reason to
`
`combine the known elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.11
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`32.
`
`I understand that the obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a
`
`formalistic conception of the words “teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” I
`
`understand that in 2007, the Supreme Court issued its decision in KSR Int'l Co. v.
`
`Teleflex, Inc. where the Court rejected the previous requirement of a “teaching,
`
`suggestion, or motivation to combine” known elements of prior art for purposes of
`
`an obviousness analysis as a precondition for finding obviousness. It is my
`
`understanding that KSR confirms that any motivation that would have been known
`
`to a person of skill in the art, including common sense, or derived from the nature
`
`of the problem to be solved, is sufficient to explain why references would have
`
`been combined.
`
`33.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill attempting to solve a
`
`problem will not be led only to those elements of prior art designed to solve the
`
`same problem. I understand that under the KSR standard, steps suggested by
`
`common sense are important and should be considered. Common sense teaches
`
`that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond the particular application being
`
`described in a reference, that if something can be done once it is obvious to do it
`
`multiple times, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
`
`teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle. As such, the prior art
`
`considered can be directed to any need or problem known in the field of endeavor
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.12
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`as of the priority date of the 882 Patent and can provide a reason for combining the
`
`elements of the prior art in the manner claimed. In other words, the prior art does
`
`not need to be directed towards solving the same problem that is addressed in the
`
`patent. Further, the individual prior art references themselves need not all be
`
`directed towards solving the same problem.
`
`34.
`
`I understand that an invention that might be considered an obvious
`
`variation or modification of the prior art may be considered non-obvious if one or
`
`more prior art references discourages or lead away from the line of inquiry
`
`disclosed in the reference(s). A reference does not “teach away” from an invention
`
`simply because the reference suggests that another embodiment of the invention is
`
`better or preferred. My understanding of the doctrine of teaching away requires a
`
`clear indication that the combination should not be attempted (e.g., because it
`
`would not work or explicit statements saying the combination should not be made).
`
`35.
`
`I understand that a person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary
`
`creativity.
`
`36.
`
`I further understand that in many fields, it may be that there is little
`
`discussion of obvious techniques or combination, and it often may be the case that
`
`market demand, rather than scientific literature or knowledge, will drive design
`
`trends. When there is such a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.13
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary
`
`skill has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. If
`
`this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of
`
`ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was
`
`obvious to try might show that it was obvious. The fact that a particular
`
`combination of prior art elements was “obvious to try” may indicate that the
`
`combination was obvious even if no one attempted the combination. If the
`
`combination was obvious to try (regardless of whether it was actually tried) or
`
`leads to anticipated success, then it is likely the result of ordinary skill and
`
`common sense rather than innovation.
`
`III. The 882 Patent
`A. Effective Filing Date of the 882 Patent
`37. The 882 Patent was filed on December 21, 2002 as application no.
`
`10/328,214 and claims priority to a provisional application no. 60/343,396, filed on
`
`December 21, 2001. I have assumed December 21, 2001 to be the priority date for
`
`the purposes of my analysis in this proceeding. I have used this priority date to
`
`underscore my analysis as to what a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time
`
`would have known and understood about the 882 Patent and its claims and the
`
`prior art known at the time.
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.14
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`B. Overview of the 882 Patent
`38. The 882 Patent is entitled “6-DOF Subject-Monitoring Device and
`
`Method.” Ex. 1001, Face. The 882 Patent generally describes a system that
`
`monitors a person’s movement in three-dimensional space while considering
`
`motion in all “six degrees of freedom” together with a person’s physiological
`
`information, and processes and synchronizes that information before reporting the
`
`results in various ways. Ex. 1001, Abstract, 3:63-4:15; see generally Figure 6
`
`(showing elements of the system):
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.15
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`
`
`Six Degrees of Freedom and 6-DOF Data
`1.
`39. The six degrees of freedom are generally described in the 882 Patent
`
`as capturing the “the movement of a subject in three-dimensional space.” Ex.
`
`1001, 1:45-56. In particular, it describes movement along the “Cartesian axes,”
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.16
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`i.e., along the x, y and z-axes, Ex. 1001, 1:45-48, 8:5-22, such as depicted in
`
`Figure 1 of the 882 Patent:
`
`
`
`Ex. 1001, Figure 1. For each of the x, y and z-axes, two types of movement are
`
`possible for a subject: “1) along the axis (translational movement), or 2) about or
`
`around the axis (rotational movement).” Ex. 1001, 1:48-51, 2:6-13; see also 8:23-
`
`27 (“[T]here are two types of movement with respect to each of the three axes:
`
`translational movement of the body to-and-fro along an axis, or any combination of
`
`axis, and rotational movement of the body around an axis, or any combination of
`
`axes.”) These six different measurements—three translational movement
`
`measurements (to-and-fro along each axis) and three rotational movements
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.17
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`measurements (around each axis)—are the six degrees of freedom measurements,
`
`and they are collected and processed to yield the “6-DOF data” described in the
`
`882 Patent. Ex. 1001, 2:30-36.
`
`40.
`
`In a section entitled “Definitions,” the 882 Patent expressly defines 6-
`
`DOF data as follows:
`
`[A]ggregated data that 1) are derived from raw data obtained
`from a plurality of accelerometer modules, and that 2) are
`representative of the movements of a subject or body-segment in
`three-dimensional space, which is to say, the rotational and
`translational movements of the subject or body-segment along or
`around each axis of a Cartesian reference-frame. The term
`includes binary representations of such data, and information
`obtained by processing such data, such as, by way of example, a)
`integrating and/or differentiating the data with respect to time to
`derive velocities, positions, and orientations, and b) converting
`the data to a form or format that is comprehensible to humans
`when displayed.
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:48-61. The technology to acquire 6-DOF data, the 882 explains, was
`
`known and already “employed in a variety of fields, such as automotive
`
`engineering and aerospace control systems.” Ex. 1001, 2:17-36.
`
`41. The 882 Patent further asserts that the invention simply “improves
`
`upon existing accelerometry technology as a means of enhancing subject-
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.18
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`monitoring by obtaining and utilizing 6-DOF data,” Ex. 1001, 2:37-39, and states
`
`that technology approaching that of 6-DOF accelerometry has been used for
`
`subject-monitoring in the fields of physiology and medicine:
`
`[T]he advantages of 6-DOF accelerometry have not been
`extended to subject-monitoring; nevertheless, physiology and
`medicine have benefitted from the availability of uniaxial (1-
`DOF), biaxial (2-DOF), and triaxial (3-DOF), accelerometer
`modules. In addition, 4-DOF measurements have been
`described. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,436,052 issued to
`Nikolic et al., discloses the use of two 2-axis solid state
`accelerometer modules attached to a subject to monitor and
`measure 4-DOF acceleration in the x-y plane. From the raw data
`so obtained it is possible, according to the computational
`methods disclosed by Nikolic, to derive approximate rates of
`oxygen consumption, and, hence, the amount of work done by
`the subject. Such applications of accelerometer modules to
`monitor the activity of a subject are fairly common . . . .
`
`Ex. 1001, 2:40-54. The 882 Patent thus admits that the only distinction between it
`
`and the prior art was applying 6-DOF measurements, rather than 4-DOF
`
`measurements, to subject monitoring in the field of “physiology and medicine.”
`
`42. The 882 Patent purports to describe a system that includes the means
`
`and methods for constructing a sensor that can be worn on a person’s body to
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.19
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`accurately obtain 6-DOF information while combining and synchronizing such
`
`data with physiological data to improve the versatility of the system. Ex. 1001,
`
`8:5-22. The disclosed system captures this information using accelerometers,
`
`which the 882 Patent expressly defines as “any means for collecting raw data
`
`relevant to the translational and/or rotational acceleration of a body: including, by
`
`way of example solid-state accelerometers, piezoelectric accelerometers, magnetic
`
`accelerometers, fibre optic accelerometers, pendulum accelerometers, and
`
`gyroscopes.” Ex. 1001, 7:36-41. The accelerometers described in the 882 Patent
`
`refers to devices “having one or more axes of measurement.” Ex. 1001, 2:14-16.
`
`43. Although the disclosed system was constructed for the pelvic area
`
`because of advantages related to its location near the center of mass and subject
`
`comfort, the 882 Patent explains that same system could be attached to any part of
`
`the torso, Ex. 1001, 8:32-37, or further any “body-segment.” Ex. 1001, 8:38-45.
`
`44. The 882 Patent expressly defines body-segment as “any one of the
`
`following parts of a subject’s body: head, neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, upper
`
`arm, forearm, calf, ankle, hand, or foot, or their equivalents in non-human species.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 7:31-35.
`
`45.
`
`In one embodiment, the 882 Patent describes the use of three “biaxial
`
`accelerometers” in order to collect “six discrete and substantially simultaneous
`
`
`
`
`
`20
`
`Petitioner Microsoft Corporation - Ex. 1003, p.20
`
`

`

`Declaration in IPR2017-01325
`
`acceleration signals, which are processed to yield DOF data describing the
`
`movements of the subject’s pelvis.” Ex. 1001, 9:1-14. Other configurations for
`
`the capturing of 6-DOF information are described however, including, for
`
`example, using “six uniaxial accelerometers,” Ex. 1001, 9:18-21, or “three uniaxial
`
`accelerometer modules can be combined with three rate gyroscopes to gather the
`
`data required to produce 6-DOF movement analysis,” Ex. 1001, 10:17-23
`
`(explaining that it may be “expedient, to employ gyroscopes to obtain raw data
`
`regarding rotational movements.”)
`
`46. The 882 Patent also shows that more than six acceleration
`
`measurements may be preferred because, for example, “[m]ore precision may be
`
`obtained . . . by having an array of eight or ten biaxial accelerometer modules.”
`
`Ex. 1001, 9:21-23. Furthermore, the 882 Patent states that one can use three
`
`gyroscopes as an alternative configuration for the measurements. Ex. 1001, 10:16-
`
`26 (“as an alternative (or addition) to accelerometer modules . . . under some
`
`circumstances expedient to employ gyroscopes to obtain raw data regarding
`
`rotational movemen